Should I Or Shouldn't I . . .

[jkfrost]

I am in a bit of a quandry regarding the lesson material for Sunday school this week.

I teach gospel doctrine class and a substantial portion of this week's material deals with the story in John of the woman taken in adultery.

This is a highly cherished story among Mormons as well as non-LDS Christians. It is frequently quoted in General Conference.

The problem is that I know the story probably never happened at all, as it is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John; and when it does start showing up in manuscripts, it is inserted in different locations.

Even as we have it in John, it is clearly an addition to the text.

Here is my dilemma:

1. Should I teach about it as if it really happened?

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?

3. Should I avoid the subject altogether?

I haven't made a decision on this yet, and would appreciate the input of board members, whose opinions I respect.

Thanks in advance.

--Consiglieri

When you find out that the story is not in the original manuscripts or the Lord tells us that it never

happened that is when it should be taught that way.

D&C 101:32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come,

he shall reveal all things-

33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew,

things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof-

34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath,

things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.

Otherwise have faith - the spirit of the story is a wise teaching.

are there any ECF quotations of this story?

Here is what I have found so far.

You say that Origen himself repented of these doctrines, and that he sent a document

to that effect to Fabian who was at that time Bishop of the city of Rome;

and yet after this repentance of his, and after he has been dead a hundred and fifty years,

you drag him into court and call for his condemnation. How is it possible then that you should receive forgiveness,

even though you repent, since he who before was penitent for emitting those doctrines gains no forgiveness?

He wrote just as you have written: he repented as you have repented. You ought therefore either

both of you to be absolved for your repentance, or, if you refuse forgiveness to a penitent

(which I do not desire to see you insist upon), to be both of you equally condemned.

There is a parable of the Gospel which illustrates this. A woman taken in adultery

was brought before our Lord by the Jews, so that they might see what judgment he would

pronounce according to the law. He, the merciful and pitying Lord, said: â??He that is

without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her.â? And then, it is said, they all departed.

The Jews, impious and unbelieving though they were, yet blushed through their own consciousness of guilt;

John viii. 9 since they were sinners, they would not appear publicly as executing vengeance on sinners.

And the robber upon the cross, said to the other robber who was hanging like him on a cross, and was blaspheming,

â??Dost not thou fear God, seeing we are in the same condemnation?â?

But we condemn in others the things of which we ourselves are conscious;

yet we neither blush like the Jews nor are softened like the robber.

The Apology of Rufinus.

Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jeromeâ??s Letter to Pammachius,28142814Ep. 84. Written at Aquileia a.d. 400.

Book 1 If Origen is not to be pardoned, neither isâ?¦

NPNF

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and

from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman

who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be found in the

Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Rufinus supposes this story to be the same as that now found

in the textus receptus of Gospel of John viii. 1â??11,â??the woman taken in adultery.

[SolarPowered]

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?

My take on the various posts so far is that the only "truth" we can be sure of is that the story is not present in the surviving early manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It is much less clear that "it probably never happened." Many folks in this thread, and also various researchers in the scriptures, are of the opinion that it is a true story, that simply originated elsewhere and was inserted into John.

I certainly wouldn't be comfortable teaching that "it probably never happened."

I would be OK with mentioning that it doesn't appear in the early manuscripts of John, but that it may well come from another, authentic source.

I don't think that truthfulness requires this history needs to be mentioned at all--reasonable people think that episode is in fact authentic, so it's not a misrepresentation to simply teach it as one would any other part of the scriptures.

[drfatguy]

Stucturecop,

I live 15 miles south of Lake Superior on the western end of Upper Michigan. Church is 40 miles west and the Stake Center is about 110 miles west. The branch I attend waxes and wanes for membership. We have been waning lately. We needed to free up some members to fill some callings so the middle hour of the block went bye-bye. My opinion is part of the waning problem is due to the fact we don't discuss the Gospel in SS. We don't have Gospel Essentials to help new member testimony. It's not a good situation, in my opinion.

Dr Fatguy

[consiglieri]

What would teaching this add to the lesson? How would it help the purpose of the lesson as it would impact the lives of the students in your class?

Stick to the manual. This is not a college course in the history of the Bible.

My opinion.

Thank you, Charity. I respect your opinion. But it does make me wonder, "Why shouldn't Sunday school for adults be (at least in some respects) a college course in the history of the Bible?"

[consiglieri]

I think it might be good to wonder what others think about that.

Try asking your Sunday School presidency and your bishopric.

And try reading your teacher's manual, and your "Teaching, No Greater Call" manual.

Our leaders in the Church have told us what we should be teaching.

... and I'm sure they will be happy to repeat it for you.

Here is my perspective on my class, which can likely be extrapolated to other classes--If I teach strictly from the manual, a percentage of the class is bored to tears. If I teach more in depth, a percentage of the class takes umbrage.

My question is this--Why should the percentage of the class that demands superficial teaching be allowed to tyranize those who are desperate for more in-depth teaching?

It appears to be a tyrany of the minority in this respect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Shortly before I moved from California I was released as EQ instructor (actually, fired is the more appropriate word) for departing from the lesson manual one too many times. He was a nice guy, and actually liked my lessons but was rather button down about what should be taught. Ex-Airforce, if that adds perspective. My attitude was, "Fine.. no one has to call me as a teacher. But if you do, I teach the way I teach. I want to give my best. If I don't teach, I'll listen to who ever does. And comment when moved upon by the spirit." Shortly after I arrived in California, I was called as EQ instructor. In all the time I lived in Kansas, I got no complaints from the Elders there. Indeed, I was called as HP instructor expressly because the quorum leader wanted interesting lessons. Then when I moved to Pittsburgh, I was very quickly called as the HP instructor and as a Sunday School teacher here. I still teach the HP quorum, after 2.5 years.

I'd have no qualms about mentioning that the woman taken in adultery story is not in the oldest manuscripts we have, but I also think that it would be dicy to claim that the story does not belong there. I think it does.

Matthew Brown's FAIR essay on the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision is suggestive here. He points out that several details that appear in Joseph's 1838 account, but which were not mentioned in the 1832 account are clearly attested in other early sources. That shows that the additional details in this case could be accurate memories rather than creative embellishments.

Somewhere, Orson Scott Card wrote something illustrating what different kinds of answers might have been given, and just what those alternate narratives might imply. That was an interesting way of demonstrating the Christ-like power of the story. I do not personally care much for the speculations about what Jesus was writing, but that is just me.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thank you for your response, Kevin. I had a run-in with my elder's quorum president over ten-years ago over a similar issue. A small but vocal minority who fear hearing anything new often control the issue. This is what I referred to above as a tyranny of the minority.

There was a bit of hubbub in my class at the end of last year when I spent some time dealing with Margaret Barker's insights on the Old Testament and how those relate to Mormon Studies. (I used your materials for this and would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your excellent work in this area.) One sister complained that I wasn't teaching from the manual and that I was quoting from non-KJV Bibles from time to time. Another sister then piped up that I was an answer to her prayers, and she was then joined by several others with similar positive comments. It is clearly a small, but vocal minority, in my class who want to be spoonfed the same pablum they have heard 100 times over. They have complained to the bishop and to the Sunday school presidency.

But for some reason, I'm still standing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Dr. Peterson was on the GD writing committee and he has expressed his opinion on the manuals. They are not canon. We are allowed to add our insight to them.

Thank you for bringing up Dr. Peterson, structurecop. I was going to ask Paul Ray if his advice would apply to Dr. Peterson, and that Dr. Peterson should ask to be released from his calling as Sunday school gospel doctrine teacher.

I confess I am a little surprised that someone as apparently orthodox as Paul Ray would suggest the rather unorthodox tactic of asking to be released from a calling. I thought that was something God inspired the bishop to do when God was done with you.

What do you think, Brother Ray?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

So once the Correlation Committee has written, the thinking has been done? What if the audience was university educated folk who yearned for more than a surface look at the subject matter?

And if there are quite a few "university educated folk" in the class; or perhaps more importantly, folk who have taken the time to study the scriptures and read the assignment and are thirsting for more light and knowledge; why should the people who have done the work be deprived of learning?

Because of the tyranny of the minority who have not read the assignment and have done virtually no study for themselves?

This seems bass ackward to me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, let's say for a moment that I agree with you and what you said, about that post being the best response to consiglieri's specific question, asking whether or not he should introduce that information during his Sunday School Gospel Doctrine class.

Try looking at that the thoughts in that post and imagine them being presented during Sunday School.

Do you see how that would detract from the lesson?

I think part of the reason we shouldn't stray from the topic of a lesson is to avoid having comments like that one.

Some people hardly study at all and all they get in Sunday School is what the teacher and other students have to say.

What is the value of this point compared to the subject of the lesson?

I think there are better things to talk about during Sunday School.

... and btw, if you don't know it, I just agreed with the last comment you made.

Paul, your comment puzzles me.

You appear to be arguing with Larry P and with me. Yet both of us agree with you that the matter should not be brought up in the Sunday School class.

I don't get it.

[consiglieri]

What is NOT allowed, however, is to stray from the topic, or to stray from the approved materials.

... at least not without consent of the Sunday School presidency, the bishopric, and the GA's.

I don't want to say what the first line above reminds me of, because of the problem around these parts with getting Godwin's Law invoked.

As to the second line, are you really saying that before I use any material outside the "approved" materials (there's that word again!), I actually have to get the consent of the Sunday school presidency, the bishopric and the GA's?

Would just one GA do? Or do I have to get all of them on board?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I think you should teach the story and have the class discuss what eternal principles can be gained from it:

1)"chekc yourself before you wrek yourself"

2)repentance

3)helping sinners instead of walloing inself righteousness

4) etc.

Whether this episode happend in real life or not can only be assertained by those who were there. I believe it reallly happend, maybe John left it out and a disciple or someone who knew Jesus personally preserved it and had it inserted in his book?

Sunday School is not the Jesus Seminar. It is for teaching people how to get to heaven,and make heaven on earth.

Hi, Her Amun!

Thanks for weighing in here. Maybe you could tell me what no one else has responded to yet.

What exactly does this story teach about forgiveness? It seems to teach that an adulterer can be forgiven without even confessing a belief in Jesus, not to mention no repentance, no baptism, no gift of the Holy Ghost, no joining the church, no enduring to the end.

Is this really a lesson that should be taught in Sunday school class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

And if there are quite a few "university educated folk" in the class; or perhaps more importantly, folk who have taken the time to study the scriptures and read the assignment and are thirsting for more light and knowledge; why should the people who have done the work be deprived of learning?

Because of the tyranny of the minority who have not read the assignment and have done virtually no study for themselves?

This seems bass ackward to me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If the Spirit is present, if the teacher has prepared prayerfully and diligently, if there is a synergistic discussion focusing on application of gospel principles as taught in the scriptures (40 minutes is precious little time for scholarly discussion anyway), I believe the lesson can be edifying for virtually everyone across the entire spectrum.

I've seen it happen.

[consiglieri]

Well, then, if you didn't have the consent of the Sunday School presidency, the bishopric, and/or the GA's, you were straying from guidelines you should have been following.

I hope you won't do that again.

Now I know you must be joking!

Using a book written by Boyd K. Packer, acting head of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, is something that strays from the guidelines for Sunday school and requires consent from the SS presidency, the bishopric and/or the GA's?

I have a gut feeling that one particular GA wouldn't have a problem with it.

Oh, and Emeliza, I hope that you will do that again. (See how us members of the secret society of cavernous evil stick together?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

To me, this is the most sensible reply on the thread. If no one has access to the original autographs, how do we know whether this was, indeed, a later addition, or whether it had been present from the first but left out of the earliest extant copies? And if there is no way to determine, the whole matter seems speculative â?? a good reason, in my view, not to occupy scarce class time with a discussion of it.

And here is where I wonder . . . is it manifestly better to teach as truth an episode the historicity of which is doubtful?

When you're in the Mormon paradigm stick with Mormon orthodoxy.

Hi Tsuzuki!

I think that the Mormon paradigm is that the Bible is correct insofar as it is translated correctly; that many plain and precious things have been taken away from it; and allows for the idea that nonscriptural additions have been made . . . this likely being a case in point.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

At Church meetings we should learn what the leaders of the Church want us to learn.

But what if everybody in the adult gospel doctrine class has already learned what the leaders of the Church want us to learn?

I hope it doesn't seem like I am picking on you, Paul Ray, but your comments do serve as a good foil.

And I don't want this thread to take a personal bent, but my wife has been inactive for a couple of years now precisely because she finds church so boring. And not only is it boring, but there is three hours of it!

I can't believe that she is the only Mormon who doesn't go to church anymore because it seems like a waste of their time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, I don't see any problem with teaching about that. As I recall Elder Nelson spoke about this in Gen Conf not too long ago so why can't you in SS? The more members get to know the better. I'm with the poster that mentioned getting members interest piqued so that they go home and do a bit more in depth study instead of those who sit there with blank faces who never even bothered to look at the little study never mind read the scriptures.

And my experience has been that it is precisely those who sit there with blank faces who never bothered to read the scriptures or do any study who are the most likely to get bent out of shape and complain to the bishop and the SS presidency.

I'm not sure if anybody in my class has complained to a GA yet, but I imagine it is only a matter of time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

And here is where I wonder . . . is it manifestly better to teach as truth an episode the historicity of which is doubtful?

--Consiglieri

Absent direct revelation to the contrary, the default course (and, it seems to me, the safest), is to view it as genuine.

[consiglieri]

consiglieri

Since you know me personally, you know I am no stranger to speculative discussion of the Gospel in private discussions where it is easier to establish the difference between opinion and doctrine. Our personal growth is always benefitted by such discussions. However, the purpose of the Gospel Doctrine class is, as the name implies, to teach the doctine of the Gospel. Even when we explain that what we are saying is speculative, there will be those who do not hear our caveat, maybe they are looking for their favorite scripture on the topic, and therefore go away thinking that what was taught was doctine. This is why I always try to make the material I introduce serve to enhance the purpose of the lesson and not to detract or sideline that purpose.

I have always found the tecnique of preevaluation of class interest useful. This can be implemented by several pointed questions at the beginning of the class or by use of the suggested or an alternative thought provoking activity. We should always take care to evaluate the level of the least of our students and try not to teach too far above and especially not below that level. This does not mean that we can not teach new concepts, but they must be taught based on what the class members already understand.

Larry P

Dear Larry,

I hope that you know that I have many fond memories of late night group discussions at your house. I will tell you that I felt the spirit more strongly in those meetings than just about any others I can recall at church. I have high regard for you, and so I take your comments with the utmost seriousness.

Perhaps I could do a "preevaluation" of the class by asking the question, "How many are interested in hearing about a famous New Testament story that probably never happened?"

And I am interested in your suggestion that we teach "not too far above and especially not below the level of the least of the students." Why do you put more emphasis on not teaching below that level than not teaching too high above that level?

Respectfully yours,

--Consiglieri

We are forgetting one thing. What is the text of the lesson? Is it the approved lesson materials or is it the scriptures. I believe it is stressed in the message to the instructor to use the scriptures as the text of the lesson and the manual as a guide. I haven't read it recently because we are on a two hour block. It sucks. I miss Sunday School.

Dr Fatguy

Please don't spend too much time missing Sunday school. Our church has managed to structure all three of its Sunday meetings so that they are all the same. It is three hours of Sunday school. I wouldn't complain about having only two. You are a better man than I am.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It is good I am not a sunday school teacher then! I once used the childrens book - I love you forever, I love you for always.

I did not seek the permission of my elders either... Hell must have a room all set for me now!

I hope you won't do that again.

[structurecop]

And I am interested in your suggestion that we teach "not too far above and especially not below the level of the least of the students." Why do you put more emphasis on not teaching below that level than not teaching too high above that level?

When in doubt, always ask yourself: What Would Brigham Young Do?

[jkfrost]

Tell them that it never happened and that it was not found in the original manuscripts..where are they anyway?

how about this one:

no one today knows one way or another that it did happen it just showed up in the book of John later on.

How does anyone know that any of the NT stories happened at least those angelic visits and healings etc?

[Paul Ray]

But what if everybody in the adult gospel doctrine class has already learned what the leaders of the Church want us to learn?

Such as?

I think there are many ideas we can introduce about a topic while using only the approved lesson materials.

Go ahead and pick any topic, and then I will add my thoughts on that issue from the approved lesson materials.

I hope it doesn't seem like I am picking on you, Paul Ray, but your comments do serve as a good foil.

All my friends call me Paul, consiglieri. Are you my friend?

And I don't want this thread to take a personal bent, but my wife has been inactive for a couple of years now precisely because she finds church so boring. And not only is it boring, but there is three hours of it!

You have my condolences.

I can't believe that she is the only Mormon who doesn't go to church anymore because it seems like a waste of their time.

She's not. But I'm sure that doesn't help you feel any better knowing your wife is one of them.

And my experience has been that it is precisely those who sit there with blank faces who never bothered to read the scriptures or do any study who are the most likely to get bent out of shape and complain to the bishop and the SS presidency.

I think I concur.

Do you concur?

Does anybody else concur?

Personally, I don't like anyone who whines and complains, for whatever reason.

I'm not sure if anybody in my class has complained to a GA yet, but I imagine it is only a matter of time.

You can please some people sometimes, but can never please everyone all of the time.

Do you really care if someone doesn't like you?

... while knowing that I and God, and some other people, love you, a lot more than you know?

[consiglieri]

When you find out that the story is not in the original manuscripts or the Lord tells us that it never

happened that is when it should be taught that way.

Thanks for your quotes from the ECF's, jk.

But your statement above leads naturally into something else I have been thinking of.

We know that the Johanine Comma falls into the same category as the story of the woman taken in adultery.

The Johanine Comma was clearly inserted many centuries after 1 John was composed in an effort to bolster the doctrine of the Trinity and give it scriptural support.

Would those who think I ought not to mention the textual difficulties with the story of the woman taken in adultery also think I should not mention the same difficulties with the Johanine Comma?

Or will I get a different response on this?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If the Spirit is present, if the teacher has prepared prayerfully and diligently, if there is a synergistic discussion focusing on application of gospel principles as taught in the scriptures (40 minutes is precious little time for scholarly discussion anyway), I believe the lesson can be edifying for virtually everyone across the entire spectrum.

I've seen it happen.

I must be looking in the wrong places.

[sunstoned]

A Gospel Doctrine teacher, in our Church, should teach from the approved lesson materials of our Church.

You should avoid giving information from any other materials, and simply focus on the materials you have to work with.

If you can't do that, you should ask to be released from that calling.

Many posters have claimed that they were never taught or knew about many of the topics that are discussed on this forum even though they attended church classes up through Institute. This was also my experience.

It is possible today for a member to go through year after year of the correlated lessons and fully believe that Joseph had only on wife, that the Book of Abraham was a literal translation from scrolls written by the hand of Abraham, that the American Indians are the literal descendents of the Lehiites, etc.

Iâ??m sure that some believe that sticking to a scripted, correlated plan might seem the best way to paint the church and the gospel in a positive light. There is other who hold the opinion that withholding relevant facts is a form of dishonesty.

[e=mc2]

Consiglieri:

And if there are quite a few "university educated folk" in the class; or perhaps more importantly, folk who have taken the time to study the scriptures and read the assignment and are thirsting for more light and knowledge; why should the people who have done the work be deprived of learning?

Because of the tyranny of the minority who have not read the assignment and have done virtually no study for themselves?

This seems bass ackward to me.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would at least indicate the situation, and bring the minority up a notch in their knowledge, and then go on and teach the meaning of the lesson......... I know I certainly don't let even the majority of my Elder's Quorum (literally 99.9% of them, because I am the only one who knows Hebrew, German, and Greek, little though it is!) stop me from translating from German, Hebrew, and Greek, when these bring out items of signial interest and education. And they LOVE IT when I do so....... I stick with the lesson, more or less, but I have never hesitated to bring in further light and knowledge. My attitude stems from Joseph Smith's hints and example of studying Hebrew and saying the German is the closest translation. Therefore, if its good enough for Joseph, by dang its good enough for the rest of us. I have had nothing but compliments and overflowing attendance when I teach.

Best,

Kerry

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am in a bit of a quandry regarding the lesson material for Sunday school this week.

I teach gospel doctrine class and a substantial portion of this week's material deals with the story in John of the woman taken in adultery.

This is a highly cherished story among Mormons as well as non-LDS Christians. It is frequently quoted in General Conference.

The problem is that I know the story probably never happened at all, as it is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John; and when it does start showing up in manuscripts, it is inserted in different locations.

Even as we have it in John, it is clearly an addition to the text.

Here is my dilemma:

1. Should I teach about it as if it really happened?

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?

3. Should I avoid the subject altogether?

I haven't made a decision on this yet, and would appreciate the input of board members, whose opinions I respect.

Thanks in advance.

--Consiglieri

Brother...I am also a gospel doctrine teacher.

What I did was teach the object of the lesson...(As an example of the Savior's love for all) then explained that sometimes scribes would insert stories accidently omitted it other books into those that they were working on at the time. Or write a story to illistate a compsite idea taught throuhout the scriptures. That does not set well with the EV's who live and die by the "perfect word". By the way if I am not mistaken the parable of the "ten virgins" is missing from some text also.

Hope that helps...

Pa Pa

[Olavarria]

Hi, Her Amun!

Thanks for weighing in here. Maybe you could tell me what no one else has responded to yet.

What exactly does this story teach about forgiveness? It seems to teach that an adulterer can be forgiven without even confessing a belief in Jesus, not to mention no repentance, no baptism, no gift of the Holy Ghost, no joining the church, no enduring to the end.

Is this really a lesson that should be taught in Sunday school class?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I guess it all depends on who the woman actually is. Was she a "member"? Maybe, maybe not. For me this episode in the Savior's life teaches 3 main things.

1)The Savior is an original. He didnt follow the religuious crowd, even if there opinion seemed more "biblical". Unlike the rest He loved this woman. He was without sin, yet he didnt throw a stone at her. He the Ultimate and True Judge has the right to judge, for he alone is perfect.

2)He said, "go and sin no more". The major rub of repentance.

3) Mosaic law may not have actually recquired the life of the adulteror. I spoke with an ortho jew who said that a bunch of requirments(about 6) have to be met before such a penalty is exacted for stoning a child for dispespecting a parent.

One of which being that the mom has to agree(like that will ever happen) .

It could be that Moses penned that law to show us that adultery is worthy of death but that doesnt mean that we should actually carry out the penalty. It could be that the Saviors contemporaries had lost there humanity in trying to actually kill someone who Moses, or God, had never intended to have killed. In other words, Christ understood the true meaning of the law(setting a standard), whereas his contemporaries were caught up in a inhuman carrying out of the letter. Perhaps, the Jews in the time of Christ were not just apostate for merely rejecting the Messiah, but for episodes like this and the later death of Steven.

[William the Conqueror]

I am in a bit of a quandry regarding the lesson material for Sunday school this week.

I teach gospel doctrine class and a substantial portion of this week's material deals with the story in John of the woman taken in adultery.

This is a highly cherished story among Mormons as well as non-LDS Christians. It is frequently quoted in General Conference.

The problem is that I know the story probably never happened at all, as it is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John; and when it does start showing up in manuscripts, it is inserted in different locations.

Even as we have it in John, it is clearly an addition to the text.

Here is my dilemma:

1. Should I teach about it as if it really happened?

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?

3. Should I avoid the subject altogether?

I haven't made a decision on this yet, and would appreciate the input of board members, whose opinions I respect.

Thanks in advance.

--Consiglieri

Here is my dilemma:

1. Should I teach about it as if it really happened?

2. Should I teach the truth that it probably never happened?

3. Should I avoid the subject altogether?

Answer: Go and sin no more.